Talk:Solid
Page move Isn't "Solid" (as a racist term, now: Solids) much more often used on Star Trek than "Solid (matter)"? I suggest to swap those contents - move Solid to Solid (matter) or something similar, then move Solids here. Any objections? -- Cid Highwind 14:10, 2004 Dec 29 (CET) :I suggest putting both these in the same article. Neither of the two are going to be large articles anyway. Just divide it with a ' ----'. -- Harry 14:22, 29 Dec 2004 (CET) ::I still don't see why we even need a "solid (matter)" article. This isn't a science encyclopedia and none of the phases of matter deserve their own article except for plasma because it's mentioned so often on Trek. If somebody really needs to know what the scientific definition of "solid" is, let them look it up somewhere else. -- EtaPiscium 22:30, 29 Dec 2004 (CET) :::This seems pretty dead... however I don't see why Solid is about matter, either. I suggest to move the content of this page to "solid (matter)" as suggested by EtaPiscum -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 18:02, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC) Deletion rationale and discussion As written, the article simply defines the word. As I don't believe there were any specific mentions to that state of matter, I would wonder what would actually go here(every appearance of a solid object?) I think this could be changed into a redirect to Solids, as the word was used in that manner.--31dot 13:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC) : Keep: "I don't believe there were any specific mentions to that state of matter" -- That's a pretty bold statement in terms of recalling something so obscure. Anyway, I would point out that what goes on that page would be any reference to a 'state of matter' being solid, and aside from references to "solid rock" or "solid iron", or as in which refers to espers who seem to see through solid objects; I've found a references to solid states of matter, where there is also an indication that it could also be another state in about crystalline emiristol, a solid propellant fuel; in , the E s sensors were able to detect the Thasian, but the deflectors did not indicate a solid substance; in , the Companion doesn't read solid, but rather more unstable, tenuous, like a collection of gases; and then the kicker in , with regards to Mellitus, who in its natural state, it's gaseous and when it's at rest, it's solid. Otherwise, I would almost opt to move solids to solid, because that state of matter is the reference of origin for this "nickname", as well, there is already Changeling references in the liquid (state) article. --Alan del Beccio 15:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC) I appreciate you putting those things here. In almost three and a half years no one has put or even hinted at any of those things on the article, so I don't think it was unreasonable to suggest it.(I realize you did not say that it was, that's just my thinking) I don't see what most of those things(if put into the article) bring to MA other than a dictionary definition of what solid is; I mean, the Companion, solid or a gas, is still the Companion. However, I guess I would now shift my view from delete to a neutral standpoint.--31dot 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC) :Evidently Spock thought it was important to state. Nevertheless, it's still fits the usage that was sought. --Alan del Beccio 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) :Seeing as no one has an apparent issue with the rewrite, the page will be kept. --Alan del Beccio 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)